From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 04:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 12:09:28 +0200 > > > On Wednesday 09 August 2006 09:53, David Miller wrote: > > > > > + if (atomic_read(&ipv4_dst_ops.entries) >= (hmask + 1) && > > > + (hmask + 1) < ip_rt_hashsz_limit) > > > + schedule_work(&rtcache_work); > > > + return 0; > > > } > > > > > > > I wonder if you should not replicate this test (against (hmask + 1) < > > ip_rt_hashsz_limit) in rtcache_resize() itself, because we might end > > calling > > rthash_new_size() while (hmask +1 ) = ip_rt_hashsz_limit > > That's a good point, let me think about that. Ok, I don't think this is an issue. schedule_work() will only cause one invocation of rthash_new_size() even if you call schedule_work() several times before the actual workqueue invocation of rtcache_new_size(). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
